This dissertation examines eight 21st century high school U.S. history textbooks for content and omission concerning American Indians. The focus of the inquiry is on the Marshall Trilogy cases and other federal Indian law cases. The Marshall Trilogy cases are three cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court over 180 years ago that remain the foundational legal principles that guide governmental relations with Native peoples. The treatment afforded these cases is evaluated in light of a master national narrative for the United States. The Marshall Trilogy cases and the master national narrative have had and continue to have global consequences. The way federal Indian law is presented in textbooks impacts the way citizens treat American Indian peoples and their support for various foreign policy options. In addition, the content of high school history curriculum can affect the way students perceive history, Native America, and schooling. By examining history curriculum critically and establishing a truly inclusive narrative, the hope is that schooling and history become legitimate for all students. The primary approach is to use both a quantitative and qualitative critical content analysis using an indigenized critical discourse approach. Generally, the analysis will move from the focused text within each textbook, to other text within each textbook, to text across the textbooks, and finally to larger socio-cultural phenomena. The APPRAISAL analysis (Coffin, 2006) allows a discerning of linguistic attributes that allows for the exposition of the narrative of the specific text concerning the Marshall Trilogy. The general content analysis is given a critical lens by Brayboy's Tribal Critical Theory (2005) and Grande's Red Pedagogy (2004). The curriculum work of Apple (2004) and Hall's (1986) exposition of Gramsci's hegemony add to our understanding of the nature of textbooks and the knowledge that counts for society. Fairclough's (1995) Dialectic-Relational Approach guides the study to determining whether there is a social wrong, and if so, what it is. The wrong is then examined to determine what obstacles are in the way of addressing the wrong and whether the society needs the wrong. Finally, various ways of correcting the social wrong are addressed.